[GUEST] Methods of Influence
Choice in play versus choice on paper.
This week Murkdice, who runs the Murkmail Newsletter, has an article about player influence and how mechanics vs. in-fiction approaches can augment the experience.
I’ve been really digging the articles over on their newsletter. They’re quick, informative, and hit a perspective that I wholeheartedly agree with.
They’ve also got a bunch of cool games over at their itch page, so check those out as well!
Methods of Influence
Players want to feel like the actions they take have meaning at the table. Whether players are story gamers, problem solvers, power gamers, or otherwise, most players want to influence the unfolding world and story they’re a part of.
In some sense, how a game ‘plays’ is influenced by the players’ mechanical toolkit. I think that’s half the story: in large part, the way a game plays is determined by the in-fiction choices the players make and commit to.
The Players Do What’s Available To Them
Lets break down what I mean by ‘mechanics’ and ‘in-fiction choices’:
Mechanics. An ability on your character sheet enabling you to find a fence for stolen goods.
There doesn’t need to be any in-game logic that leads to this happening. In other words, you press the ability button, the ability happens, and the story is moulded around you pressing that button.
In-fiction choices. You work to find a fence for stolen goods: you look for a suspicious person in a pub and pay them for information - much like the real world actually functions.
You use logic and information to work towards the goal. Though there might be mechanics involved, there is not a pre-defined ‘find a fence’ ability for you to use.
In my experience, if you reduce/weaken the set-in-stone mechanics, players leverage in-fiction approaches to compensate. Conversely, when players have a powerful set of mechanical tools and a situation arises, they will look to their character sheet for answers.
After all, why work to create your own buttons when your character sheet has buttons that do the job?
Many (all?) GMs are looking for their players to interact more with the setting in which the characters live. If mechanics don’t cover every aspect of the game, the players have to get creative. They need to engage with the story, the situation, the collective experience, and shape it creatively instead of using preset actions as shortcuts.
Some gamers think that piles of complex rules and mechanics increase creativity (and, for some people, that may be true). I find though that using stuff already prepared for you is not creativity. For example, I don’t think anybody would argue the normal use of a calculator is an exercise in creativity.
Encouraging Engagement
When the main method of shaping the narrative is through in-fiction choices, the players will naturally become more invested in the game.
This isn’t rocket science. Players who perform actions based on their own creativity will feel more rewarded than players who perform actions based on what’s on their sheet, and on many other character sheets.
Some examples:
A lawful character decides to investigate who got to the prized gemstone that was supposedly protected in a vault. In a mechanics-focused game, this could be as simple as rolling an “Investigation” check. In a more fiction-focused game, this could be dusting for prints, reviewing security footage, calling in potential witnesses, etc.
Several characters need access to funds and contact with people that they currently do not have. With certain games and their mechanics, they may simply speak to enough people, roll enough Charisma checks, and get the goods. Without those, however, a character may have to take on errands, possibly even join an entire faction, to make inroads with the big dogs.
In my experience, newer players think they’re playing top trumps until the mechanical tools are peeled back, leaving only in-fiction options. What happens next? They explore.
Modern/Neo-trad vs OSR/NSR
Many fans of OSR/NSR games (old/new-school renaissance) praise settings over specific systems because in their games, in-fiction approaches are the route to success. The setting provides 50%+ of the material players use to reach the outcomes they want, and each setting offers new possible ways to reach desired outcomes. The system, in a lot of cases, falls to the background and allows the unfolding story to come forward.
In a lot of modern-style games (think DND 5E), the main way you influence the fiction is based on your class and its toolkit. The setting is more or less set-dressing that allows you to fulfill your character fantasy. This is the realm of organized play, playing with relative strangers, and the power of the individual character. In other words, GMs are there to facilitate the power fantasy with a dose of challenge to not make it feel like wish fulfillment.
Comparing the two further, a paladin in a modern-style game unlocks more powerful attacks as they level up. In OSR/NSR, an equivalent might be finding a retired martial master to train you in the ways of the sword and board. If we take a step back here, we’ve got two options. One option is a result of a choice you made before you ever started playing in the world, whereas the other is a consequence of your character’s actions in play.
Now, this is all subjective. While mechanics-heavy games can hinder engagement and creativity, I can’t deny that some players love the challenge and strategic depth they can provide - or being giving cool tools to play with immediately.
For situations where you want concrete rules spelled out for large groups of people, this style of game suits.
In short, if you’re having trouble with your players caring about and engaging with the world, try going easy on the mechanics and make them rely on in-fiction leverage to get what they want. You might be surprised to find that LESS rules = MORE engagement. And more engagement means more fun!
Thanks to Murkdice for the article this week. Go check out the Murkmail Newsletter for more quickfire content on ways you can improve your game!
 | A guest post by
|